Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
re: the Fassbinder trillogy
I just looked it up... The three films are like over 5-and-a-half hours long. I rarely watch anything that long unless it has something to do with large men jumping over other large men to throw a brown ball through a rim or people in shorts hitting a small yellow ball over a net. Maybe if I could watch it in FassForward.
I rarely take the time to read or watch fiction. I love music and I rarely get a chance to listen to any. Are they still using guitars.
But I'm always willing give my uninformed opinions on a number of subjects.
Now I'm going to try to finish my comments about beauty and sexism in less than book form.
P.S.: Quark, feel free to add any punchline you wish as long as it has nothing to do with robotic pigeons,
'Good thing you weren't watching basketball. We'd think it was a sign from Sarah Palin! (See, I just couldn't resist.)
I've had the same experiences regarding what I think I've heard. With every job I've had, communications have been the most important part of the process. It is so easy to screw things up (things we humans can do so easily, as you can tell from my frequent cx. Fortunately, I usually caught my errors BEFORE things got into print, or whatever.)
Yes, I care about our friendships, too, and wait for you to "come out to play."
I just had a sign from God (or whoever), I turned on the Dodgers game. The Dodgers are leading 2-0 in the 1st inning with what looks like 2 men on base and 1 out. A Dodger batter fouled a ball off, He stepped out of the batter's box and when he turned around to step back in the name on the back of his jersey was Loretta. As far as I know, there's no Quark on either team.
The best thing about this is that the each of us cares enough about the discussion and the fact the we all do to keep coming back to see if anything new has been added.
I'm not upset or offended at all by anything that was said at all. People often misunderstand what they see, read and hear. I recall that I've been very upset by something I'd heard on a show. So I downloaded the show so I could have the exact words to point out to the host. When I listened to it a second time, I thought "what was I so upset about He/she didn't say what I thought I heard."
Different people are more interested and sensitive to different issues. Sometimes that causes them to misinterpret things because of their expectations.
As for Quark's joke about not wanting to talk to you, forget it. I missed you until you posted your first message. It was like I was at the park all alone waiting to see you come my way. It would be nice if there was more communication between members here. Now I have two friends to look forward to talking with.
B Roll,
You may have thoughts you think are funny all the time, but your non sequiturs sometimes strike me as set-ups waiting for a (read that "my") punchline. Sometimes I think we're just cats playing with metaphoric string. 'Just too tempting to resist!
Dear Quark and B-Roll,
I wish you could both have come over for a beer and the Fassbinder trilogy. Boy could we have had a discussion about this subject after watching the trilogy. But it is so very very good!
I want to deeply apologize for my criticisms. After I re-read your comment, after I had literally cooled down, I realized they had no basis in the comments you were making to each other, so B-RolI --challenging Thom's ideas is very very good, and being funny is very good too. It seems that he likes challenges. I think you both were making funny points about inner and outer beauty and how one reflects the other and what happens to our bodies. WHen you re-read the conversation, what I wrote was totally off-the-wall so don't think of it for another moment.
I am not supposed to be out in the hot sun for a long time because of this crazy medicine I take and I had been riding my bike around in 95 degree heat in high humidity and then I came back and wrote that goofy post. I am very sorry about that. It was Quark who made the comment about face-lifts not intending any of things I mentioned, so I didn't even read the posts properly enough to see who wrote what. .
This was my bad as they say, although I appreciate you separating out the reasonable points I made.
Would you be able to watch the Fassbinder trilogy? It would be fun to have a discussion about women, appearance and sexism after watching his trilogy because there is so much to talk about. I loved Lola which is the classic professional man rescuing the prostitute story but so amazing and subtle and tender. It's very beautiful. The marriage of Maria Braun is devastating too. Veronica Voss is a strange story about fame and addiction that is interesting.
Thank you too for the interesting discussion. I love this site so very much!
warm wishes,
Loretta
B Roll,
Maybe you'd rather not "talk" with me after that last "go-round." If not, I'll just have to be content to admire your wit and widsom from afar. (Yes, I'm teasing, but I'm also serious.)
B Roll,
Yes, I wondered about the same things, i.e., why YOU received the criticism when you didn't even say the things for which you were criticized. I felt bad about that. It makes me feel that I can't really "talk" on this blog. YOU knew what I meant, but apparently Loretta didn't (even tho my post was not addressed to Loretta.)
I don't know that just labelling my posts "To B Roll Only," would solve any problems. Besides, this is a public forum. Is there another place (blog, etc.) where we could "talk", seriously or not? Maybe I should try the message board...
Loretta and Quark,
Sorry to be late again; it’s the weekend. I hope you check back and find this before they clear this week’s blog for the new week’s activity.
I’m glad to see we’re past the misunderstanding; however I have a question and then a few thoughts. The question is for Loretta. Please don’t interpret this as any kind of anger or annoyance. I’m very interested in the way our minds work and how we perceive things.
After Quark and I replied to your comment, you said that you misunderstood our points. Let me repeat that. You said that you misunderstood OUR points. But your criticism (which wasn’t harsh at all) was only addressed to me and not to Quark. You even specifically referenced “face lifts” which Quark mentioned but I never did. Quark also used the word “ugly” although she wasn’t referring to Bay Buchanan’s physical appearance. But somehow, those comments became associated with me in your mind rather than with Quark.
Question: Do you have any insight into how the ideas you found offensive became associated with me (who didn’t make them) and not with Quark (who made them)?
I have a few thoughts, any of which may or may not be valid.
1) You may have associated the comments with me because I’m a man and Quark is a woman and this is a male dominated culture.
2) Unlike most people who post on this blog and almost revere Thom, I challenge and critique his ideas and positions. Sometime I’m blunt, sometimes a little rude and /or sarcastic. Could it be that you resent the nature of my posts here?
3) Most of the posts on this blog are very serious. However, I sometimes just post things that pop into my mind that I find funny. Is it possible that you find my jokes annoying and think I’m not serious enough?
So if you get back to this blog before they clear it and you have the time to think about it, I’d love to hear if you have any incite on why you only addressed your comment to me.
By the way, the reason I criticize Thom is because I do take this all very seriously. As for the joke, I just have thoughts I think are funny all the time.
I’ll post my thoughts separately.
Hi Thomm,
This is for a show from a while back. There are no stars on the moon because of the reflection of the sun. (you were right)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-mo...
Loretta,
Thanks so much for this conversation. I really value it.
Loretta,
I'd bring over a beer and a movie if there weren't so many miles between us!
btw, I think you're right; young women are being told so many false criteria that they supposedly must live up to in order to be "successful" in our culture. It's always inspiring to look to people like Judge Sotomayor and others, who have succeeded despite what "society" might say. "Society" is full of (poop) and I wish everyone would acknowledge that and get on with the REAL issues of life.
Loretta,
I guess I was thinking about something my mother always said, that true beauty comes from within and, that people one might think of as otherwise plain or even unattractive become beautiful to us when the beautiful PERSON that they are shines out from WITHIN. Then, what does it matter what the OUTSIDE looks like?
As long as people judge each other by outside appearance (which goes back thru the eons to somehow guessing which person is genetically healthier and, therefore, a better mate, humans will always (subconsciously or not) look for the "most attractive" mate. I'm saying that true attractiveness shines through and that, no matter how much someone tries to hide that inner self, it also will eventually show.
I think that is a good message for young women --- AND for young men!
I notice women more because I am one.
At the heart of many of our poor/criminal policies of the last thirty years are two key figures, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. From the Nixon days to Reagan's, these thugs have harmed this country in ways we may never recover from. Our Congress is a joke. Karl Rove still hasn't testified and never will. Are we just going to continue to take it? Or do something about it?
I really mis-read your points that's for sure:-) It's so hot in Portland today with such high humidity--it's making me kind of loopy. Time for a beer and a Fassbinder movie from the library. Have a great weekend.
you guys are right. I misunderstood your points and we're on the same side, here, but don't you think that it's true that when criticizing right wing women, the comments are much more often directed at her appearance in one way or another than they are at men who are right wing? And this effects young women both on the right and the left, in hugely negative, complicated ways that I really wish they didn't have to deal with.
Ageist, sexist comments were continually directed at Hillary Clinton for example along with Sarah Palin by both men and women and I don't think the folks doing it necessarily realized the effect this has on young girls and women who are creating identities for themselves about strengths, talents and attributes that should be emphasized and valued .
That's my larger point that I took out on you guys, sorry.
Loretta,
I guess I started any conversation you might think sounds mysogynist. I made a reference to Bay Buchanan's changed appearance (after B Roll mentioned that Gov. Dean's appearance didn't seem to change.) I only meant that there isn't enough so-called "beauty" that a person like Bay Buchanan could apply to cover all the ugliness in her heart.
'Sorry for not being clearer. (Sometimes I speak in "shorthand" and forget that not everyone else is thinking the same thing...)
Loretta,
Sorry for the slow response. I really wasn’t expecting your post. I hope you check back and see this.
I don’t think your comments are harsh at all and if I express my ideas in public I open myself to criticism. However, I don’t understand why you directed this comment to me. If you see this post, maybe you could explain.
Looking over the exchange between Quark and myself, I don’t see any instance when I commented on anyone’s physical appearance other than noting that Howard Dean seems not to be aging. I saw him on Democracy Now this morning. I think my post about my mouth changing from being horizontal to perpendicular in relations to my eyes is clearly not serious.
My comment about Bay Buchanan was a metaphorical reference that when she looks in the mirror, she’s sees her brother. Her brother is Pat Buchanan and both Bay and Pat Buchanan are right-wing ideologues and racists (among other things). I was referring to her character and ideology not her physical appearance. It’s like when on person accuses another of being arrogant and the other person say, “Take a look in the mirror.
You mentioned face lifts. That term doesn’t appear in my posts. I didn’t even allude to face lifts. My only mention of Bay Buchanan was is response to Quark’s post to me about Buchanan. The meaning of my reply was that when Bay Buchanan looks in the mirror she sees someone very much like her right-wing brother.
If you see this and feel I’m missing something, please let me know.
Thanks
Dear B Roll,
I don't want to be too harsh, but misogyny is still misogyny even when it is directed at a woman whose views you oppose. Since we don't criticize righty men on the basis of their looks nearly as often as we make mention of the appearance of women whose views we oppose, I would like folks to realize that this sort of criticism regarding face lifts and other things like that is extremely harmful, especially to our young, vulnerable women who are trying to create strong self-esteems in a very crazy world.
Imagine you were trying to build your daughter's self-image while speaking to her about politics, Would you criticize Bay Buchanan with the same sort of language that emphasizes her appearance rather than her wrong-headed ideas?
I think we all need to work on this a little.
thank you,
Loretta
Quark,
I understood exactly what you meant. There's nothing to forgive. Unfortunately the guy recognized almost nothing in himself, but he was constantly projecting his characteristics onto others. He accused people of acting exactly the way he acted.
B Roll,
RE: "He must have recognized something in himself. (We call that “projection.” LOL)"
I hope that came out the right way. I meant to say that he THOUGHT he saw something that he recognized in himself.
Please forgive me if that meaning didn't come across.
AMA endorses House Democrats' health care bill
The American Medical Association on Thursday endorsed a liberal health overhaul bill that includes a public insurance option, a bold step for a traditionally conservative group with a checkered past on health reforms.
In its strongest action yet signaling support for President Barack Obama's vow to reform health care, the nation's largest doctors' group sent letters to three House committees behind the bill.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D99FR64O0.htm
Hmmmm, now why would the AMA endorse a liberal health bill? Could it be because it does nothing about the exorbitant price of health care?
B Roll,
He must have recognized something in himself. (We call that "projection." LOL)
Quark,
I think I'm better looking.
As for being a long lost relative, a guy on the message board got very upset with me when I asked him if he was my long lost cousin T Roll. Apparently he found a picture of me because he called me Butt Face.
B Roll,
Notice father's mouth:
http://images2.fanpop.com/images/quiz/156000/156271_1236179071736_400_30...
(s.b. "Leela")
B Roll,
Either that, or you're a long-lost brother of Lela on "Futurama!"